1994 (2) TMI 63 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal.
2. Interpretation of entry in the Notification No. 202/88 regarding final products.
3. Effectiveness and adequacy of appeal as an alternative remedy.
4. Timeliness of filing an appeal after the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the rejection of a writ petition by the learned single Judge based on the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal, which was deemed adequate and effective. The petitioner sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of final products specified in a notification. The order of adjudication was appealed before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal, making it appealable to the Appellate Tribunal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

2. The appellant argued that the appeal was not effective and efficacious, contending that the relief sought in the writ petition depended on the interpretation of specific entries in the notification. The court noted that the appeal allowed for addressing questions of fact and law, including subsequent events, making it a suitable forum for the appellant's case. The existence of the Appellate Tribunal ensured the speedy and effective disposal of such matters.

3. The respondents raised concerns about the timeliness of filing the appeal, suggesting that it should have been done in 1993 and might now be barred by time. However, the court observed that the period of limitation was 90 days from the date of service, with provisions for condoning delays up to 90 days. As the writ petition was filed within this timeframe, allowing the appellant to file an appeal within a specified period was deemed appropriate.

4. Consequently, the writ appeal was disposed of with the direction for the appellant to prefer an appeal within 30 days against the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)'s order. The Appellate Tribunal was instructed to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with the law, without considering the period of limitation. The judgment emphasized that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 was not warranted in this case, and no costs were awarded.